__________________religions, worst damnation of mankind"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened." Linus TorvaldsLinux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”.vermaden's:linksresourcesdeviantartspreadbsd

Thanks for the reply.
Now i'm trying to find information about the Portable C Compiler
I find this old (2008) pdf document.News of the recent first release.

For the few things that i'm reading now the key feautures of this new compiler is that the core function depend from the machine is very small, but i would like known how easy is the support for the main compiler and how easy is the support for new standard?
As for example the new C++11.

From what I recall, PCC is C compiler only, it does not compile C++ code.

__________________religions, worst damnation of mankind"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened." Linus TorvaldsLinux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”.vermaden's:linksresourcesdeviantartspreadbsd

So for C++ is sufficient use one or the other indicated on the title.
Good.
Thanks.

Btw if you want to start using C++11 features you'll want the gcc from ports, not the system compiler (or use clang from ports). The base gcc has no C++11 support at all. At this moment no compiler implements all of C++11 yet, so the later a compiler you can get for this the better. I don't know whether gcc or clang is a better bet at the moment or exactly how much work the porters have to do to get up to the latest one of each. I looked briefly and it looked to me like gcc 4.6 was ported (but broken on one architecture?), but I didn't go so far as to try the package (I have a bunch of things that have to happen first I won't bore you with and, besides, I'm quite happy to wait until Bjarne Stroustrup gets his book out to get going learning this stuff).

This is not necessarily true. If someone puts the work in, then yes. However, if developers focus on integrating LLVM with base (and I’ve certainly seen more OpenBSD devs using LLVM than pcc), then it will very likely be LLVM instead.

Not that anybody’s opposed to moving to pcc. The only problem is the work that remains to be done. In my personal opinion, the most likely way that pcc will get jump‐started in OpenBSD would be if someone were to add support for the gcc2 architectures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vermaden

From what I recall, PCC is C compiler only, it does not compile C++ code.

I recall reading on the pcc mailing list that C++ support is eventually planned, but it’s not close enough to be on any roadmap.

__________________
Many thanks to the forum regulars who put time and effort into helping others solve their problems.